Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #05-3077 <br />5 January 20G5 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />List of Exhibits <br />A. Application <br />B. Hardship Documentation Form <br />C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site <br />Plan <br />D. Paddock & Fencing Layout <br />E. Letters from the Applicants to the <br />Neiglibors <br />F. Aerial Photo <br />G. Memo regarding an Appeal of an <br />Administrative Decision dated 01-21-93 <br />H. Letters from Neighboring Property <br />Owners <br />I. Property Owners List <br />J. Plat Map <br />Background <br />In November the City received a phone call regarding a lean-to structure under <br />construction that appeared to be too close to the property line. AAer looking into the file <br />staff determined that no pennit had been issued. At lliat time, Building Inspector, Bruce <br />Vang issued a stop work notice. <br />Mrs. O’Rourke met with staff and was told that the required setback for a stable, bam or <br />otlicr structure meant to house animals was 75 ’ from the property lines and tliat the <br />structure must be removed. At that lime the O’Rourkes detennined that they wanted to <br />request an aAer-tlie-fact variance for the structure to remain at the current location. Staff <br />informed the iq}plicants that there was no hardship present for which to gain staff support <br />for a variance of this type and advised the applicants again to remove the building. Tiie <br />applicants maintained that there was no other viable location for the lean-to and <br />proceeded with the after-the-fact variance application. <br />LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET <br />Lot Area/Width; <br />RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width <br />Required 87,120 s.f (2 acres)200* <br />Actual 367,102 s.f. s.f. (8.4 acres)694 ’ <br />Setbacks for the Stable: <br />RR-IB Required Existing Proposed <br />Rear 75 ’Approximately 17”17” <br />West Side 75 ’Approximately 45 ’45 ’ <br />Structural Coverage: <br />This lot is greater than 2 acres in area; therefore the 15% structural coverage limit does <br />not apply.I